Anonymous Op-ed in the NYT

President Trump tweeted in response, “Does the so-called ‘Senior Administration Official’ really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!” (Twitter)

Across the political spectrum, there are deep concerns about the ramifications of unelected officials thwarting the wishes of a duly elected president.

“The Constitution vests executive power in the president, not ‘senior officials.’ Any authority these appointees have comes from the president, at whose pleasure they serve. For an unelected appointee to hide documents or refuse to carry out the lawful orders of the elected president is not noble. It is not patriotic. It is an assault on democracy... if you feel you can’t serve the president honorably, then there is only one honorable thing to do: Don’t serve at all.” (Washington Post)

“Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment is a constitutional mechanism. Mass resignations followed by voluntary testimony to congressional committees are a constitutional mechanism. Overt defiance of presidential authority by the president’s own appointees—now that’s a constitutional crisis.” (The Atlantic)

Some on both the left and the right are also criticizing the New York Times.

“The op-ed in this case doesn’t meet [the] standards [for anonymity], not least because it isn’t news. The fact that senior Administration officials have been trying to block Mr. Trump’s uninformed policy impulses, and mute his self-destructive anger and narcissism, has been reported hundreds of times... [this] makes us wonder if the writer’s real purpose is to assist the looming campaign for impeachment. This is certainly the New York Times agenda.” (Wall Street Journal)

“This writer was allowed by the Times to anonymously promote the strictly partisan idea that it’s best to allow Trump to continue to advance the GOP agenda while trusting unnamed individuals to control Trump’s ‘amorality.’ That is not a patriotic act but one of gross self-interest for the individual and his or her party. No one should condone allowing a reckless, unstable man to continue to be president just to save a party and its policies... Trump is right to call the official ‘gutless’ and to lambaste the Times for allowing the person to remain anonymous.” (Huffington Post)

“The suggestion that at least some members of the Cabinet have talked about invoking [the 25th Amendment] is new and shocking. But what does it mean to say that the whisperers didn’t want to precipitate a crisis? After all, the rest of the article makes clear that the crisis already exists and is deadly serious."

Counterpoint: “Given the stakes here — up to and including literal nuclear war — there need to be some people working quietly to prevent the worst from happening. Perhaps, at one point in the future, they will be in a position to do more: when Republicans are willing to actually do something about Trump. But right now, a weak resistance is better than no resistance at all."

“If you didn’t believe in the Deep State before, you might believe in it now. If you wondered if there really was a swamp that needed to be drained, you might not wonder anymore. If you weren’t that sure fake news existed, you’d be a lot surer now. And if you wanted to give liberal news sources like the New York Times a fair shake, you’d be a lot less inclined to do so today."

Townhall

“If Anonymous really believes the president is a threat to the republic, he should quit. No one is forcing him to work for the government. But if he wants to make policy, or thinks Trump should be impeached over his temperament, Anonymous should reveal himself and run for office."